The Man of Steel Tornado Scene Was Meant to Divide | And That’s the Point

Few scenes in modern superhero cinema are argued about more aggressively than the tornado moment in Man of Steel.

And because of that it seems like every couple of months we see a post on Social Media rehash the debate over again. “Is this scene misunderstood?”, “Is this Scene Over hated?” etc. etc.

Here’s the reality… you can like this scene. You can hate this scene. But watching people get angry at others for disliking it is where the discussion turns embarrassing.

That reaction says more about fandom than it does about Superman.

Superman’s mythos is built on a simple idea… he saves people. Always. Especially when he can.

So when Jonathan Kent actively prevents Clark from intervening, it feels like a betrayal of that foundation.

Not just emotionally but really philosophically.

This isn’t the Pa Kent who teaches Clark that his gifts are meant to be shared. This is a father ruled by fear.

Fear of exposure, of consequence and fear that once Clark reveals himself, there’s no going back.

That fear is the engine of the scene. And for many fans, that’s exactly why it doesn’t sit right.

No one can say that criticism isn’t fair.

The problem is fandom policing.

The idea that disliking this moment means you “don’t understand Superman” is nonsense. The Superman mythos didn’t start in 2013, and it doesn’t hinge on one creative interpretation.

As I said plainly… The opinions of those who don’t like it are just as valid as those who do.

This isn’t a scoreboard. It’s art. And art invites disagreement. When fans start treating criticism like heresy, they stop defending Superman and start defending their own emotional investment.

Ironically, that mirrors the scene itself.

The real question is, does the scene get across what it is supposed it, in that movie?

Personally, I enjoy the scene. I believe it works within the story Zack Snyder is telling. This Clark Kent is not fully formed. He’s cautious. Isolated. Burdened by restraint. His Superman isn’t born in certainty as he’s forged through hesitation and loss.

That doesn’t make it definitive. It makes it deliberate.

But I have never pretended that it doesn’t clash with decades of Superman lore. It absolutely does.

Jonathan Kent has traditionally been the moral compass, not the cautionary tale. His death usually propels Clark forward, not holds him back.

Acknowledging that tension strengthens the conversation.

Ignoring it weakens it.

At its core, the tornado scene isn’t about death. It’s about control versus responsibility.

Jonathan believes revealing who Clark truly is to the world too soon might destroy Clark’s chance at a normal life.

Clark, for once powerless, chooses to obey his Father’s wishes and that moment scars him. It shapes the Superman we meet later.

The one who hesitates, questions, and carries guilt.

You don’t have to like that journey. But dismissing it as “objectively wrong” misses the intent.

This was never meant to be comfortable.

The way fans argue about this scene perfectly reflects its theme.

Some want Superman to act immediately, consequences be damned. Others understand restraint, fear, and doubt… even if they don’t agree with the choice.

Superman has survived every reinterpretation imaginable. Golden Age optimism. Silver Age absurdity. Donner’s sincerity. Animation’s clarity. Snyder’s gravity. And now Gunn’s hopeful reset.

The character endures because the idea is bigger than any one scene.

Maybe the fandom should take that lesson too.

You can love the tornado scene.
You can hate it.
You can believe it contradicts Superman’s foundation.
You can believe it deepens him.

What you can’t do is pretend only one of those views is legitimate.

Superman deserves better than that.